At 15:38 +0100 2/12/03, jan.vandermeer@philips.com wrote:
>Hello Mike,
>
>Good to hear you here as well. I like your picture and your question.
>
>>After that, then what problem are we trying to solve, exactly?
>
>It is my understanding that the objective in the TTWG is to define
>an "authoring solution" that can be used as input to the specific
>formats for transport that you indicate in your pictures. In that
>sense, the TTWG outcome should be orthogonal to these specific
>formats.
>
>On the other hand it could be very useful to define certain profiles
>for the TTWG outcome, to ensure that "mapping" to certain specific
>formats is possible. For instance it may be possible to define one
>"simple profile" for mapping to the formats used in ATSC, DVB and
>DVD and a second "enhanced profile" for mapping to the 3GPP timed
>text format (which has richer functionality than the first three
>mentioned formats).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jan van der Meer
>Philips
>
Jan is spot on. My feeling is that we ought to be able to define
something in w3c which represents a reasonably good set of
functionality, which could be
a) made into a binary format inside mpeg-4, if they wanted to;
b) if profiled, made into the 3G format;
c) made into a streamed text format in RTP, if there were such;
I think we're all looking for an interchange syntax here from the w3c.
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime